'However, the picture generally in Antarctica is a complicated one with temperatures in the interior actually falling over the same period. There is also some evidence that the retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, on the other side of the peninsula to the Larsen B shelf, has halted'
Add to that there is this gem 'Scientists hope the data gathered on site will help them determine when such an event last happened and which ice shelves are threatened in future.'
Oh, so we don't even know if this is a cyclical event and if so how often it happens..... From 1947 to the late 1960's or early 1970's (depending on who you believe) there was a global cooling. At that time some scientists were predicting another ice age.
This is a serious event that warrants study and careful scientific examiniation. It does not warrant people running about screaming at the top of your lungs "The sky is falling".
Doing so just makes people disbelieve you when/if you do have the hard evidence to back up your claims.
Great, another revenue source for lawyers. Does any one else see a problem with this?
Imagine someone suing everytime they got a blue screen. The ONLY way to make the software super duper lawyer proof would be to overly control the hardware. Thus stiffling inovation and the creative process as a whole. Remember that original IBM PC and the clone makers were more successful than Apple because the box was open and could be added to and hacked with relative ease. No persons box will have anything "easy" about hacking at it after the lawyers are finished.
For almost any problem where litigation has been the answer, the solution is often worse than the initial problem.
I was born and raised on the Canadian border. Generally if you wanted surgery you came to the US. It got done faster and the quality of care was considered excellent. If you wanted treatment for cancer or a terminal case you went to Canada where access to experimental treatments was better. I also know first hand the nurse shortage that Canada has been suffering for years.
Point 2. The money goes to the recording industry it seems, not to the Canadian people. If your going to have a tax, use the money to help pay for things you need. Like more nurses and hospital beds (especially in some of the more rural areas!!!!!)
This is just another reminder that politicians can be bought.
Canadians on average are taxed about 10-12% more than their US counterparts. (This was in 1993, may be more now). I hope the Canadians raise a huge stink about this. Especially since we all know that the money will go straight to the suits, and the artists get screwed......again.
KDE 3.0 is currently in beta. This means that if it doesn't compile or is missing things then so be it. Beta software by definition isn't ready for general release. (I know redundant but you know...eventually the point may sink in)
The 2.4 series kernel and recent Patch penguin broohaha could be criticised for the same. In fact the 2.4 kernel has been called the "Kernel of pain" because of the problems. What this has done is force the development community to work harder, and even Linus is trying new things (automated patch integration into the tree). I believe that constructive criticiscm is always helpful, and a good sanity check BEFORE KDE 3.0 is released does not in any way take away from KDE. Perhaps the can avoid the pitfalls of the 2.4 series Kernel.
>Isn't it obvious that the reason he wants to >keep his relay open is so that his cypherpunk >friends can send less-traceable e-mails? A noble >goal, even though it has unfortunate side->effects regarding spam and this new virus.
How is this relay sending less traceable e-mails? Has Gilmore re-written it so that the header information is always incorrect? Why can't his "cypherpunk" friends send their own untraceable e-mails by simply bounceing off one of the many open proxy servers? Why don't the spoof an IP to send an e-mail? Why don't they use an e-mail server in China? Why don't they use strong encryption like Gnupg so it doesn't matter if they are sniffed?
Gilmore is full of the brown stinky stuff, and your argument smells the same. Oh yeah, and it doesn't hold any water either. Come on, an open relay is a "privacy tool"? Please..... Your "layer of obfuscation" is nothing more than a layer of manure that has nothing to do with the "privacy consiousness" of anyone.
The way RBL works is that your INCOMING mail is blacklisted. When a machine makes a connection to your ISP's SMTP port it checks it against the RBL. If that machine is NOT in the RBL then the machine continues with the trasaction. The SMTP server does not perform this same lookup when DELIVERING mail.
If and ISP blackholed his IP then you would have a problem. Verio apparently had filtered port 25 (they later took it off), which would prevent e-mail from getting to him. This is why I sent my mail to both his publically listed addresses. EFF.org isn't in any RBL that I know of (except china's)
I think Verio has a case that Herr Gilmore's server is a nuisance. By definition a nuisance is ".... is something that annoys -- a wearing on the nerves by a persistent unpleasantness. It can evoke anger and interfere with comfort and peace of mind." A server used to spread virii and SPAM would certainly meet that definition.
In several legal texts I see the following when reffering to nuisances and grounds for legal action
Nuisance
attractive nuisance
forseeability of danger
negligence
liability
I would think that this server can be shown to fit almost all of the above terms. Does anyone know if civil suits can be used to help stop SPAM? Is there a lawyer willing to take up the cause?
To: gnu@toad.org Cc: gnu@eff.org, drg@verio.net Subject: RE: Your fight with Verio
Dear Sir,
I find myself in an unusual position, agreeing with Verio. They (Verio) isn't trying to censor your mail, it is trying to prevent your mail server from being used by people to spread SPAM, viruses and other vermin of the e-mail world. It has nothing to do with trying to censor your free speech, or your opinions.
Allow me to provide a parallel this for you. Say you maintain a building on public property with a printing press. You leave the building unlocked so that your neighbor can use it as well. You do this because making a key for your friend is "just too much trouble". The building starts being used by violent gangs and an anarchist who builds his bombs there. The public ask you nicely to lock the building so that this activity will stop. You refuse saying that they are trying to censor you because you have a printing press in the building. That is patently untrue you are in affect aiding and abetting criminals by your negligence.
As an administrator that has to defend against SPAM attacks, sometimes coming by the hundreds and thousands for small domain that has at most 10 mailboxes I have no sympathy for you. This is not about free speech, this is about theft, denial of service and common sense.
The gentleman in question has a home page here He also has an e-mail address of gnu@toad.com and gnu@eff.org so you can e-mail him here and here
May I suggest instead of bitching on slashdot you take a second and send an e-mail to the John and let him know how you feel. Practice your first amendment rights. Visit his web page as well. Perhaps the "slashdot affect" can do some good. Take a second and stop being so apathetic and send John Gilmore an e-mail.
How many exploits can one "secure" softare package have? I mean jesus, BSD is fairly secure and this project is supposed to have BSD style security checks. What went wrong.
Information like this makes me
A. Consider purchasing SSH from a commercial source because the AMOUNT of problems with it is less
B. Going back to telnet!
Not many people out there with sniffers between my box and my connection. Lots of l33t haX0rS with worms probing port 22.
Maybe CAI didn't want to keep improving the product. DJB's crypto paper and methodology shows that any key less than 1024 can be "easily" cracked. CAI would have had some more work to do on their product (just as I'm sure the GNUPG team is reconsidering the approaches they are using).
Finding the people to verify PGP is secure and proving that any new method of encryption is secure takes money, and since many people still consider zipping a file up with a password as "strong encryption" there was no market for it.
To think, not to long ago the US govt. was complaining that the world would end if we all had encryption. As it turns out, few cared enough to use it.
RIPE was one of the parties pressuring ICANN because they couldn't guarantee the root servers.
Now in this response they say "The so called "volunteers" operating the rootserver system are well funded and very well co-ordinated. Binding them contractually to one entity, ICANN, would create a single point of failure, possibly subject to capture. The current form of organisation works well, and is resistant to capture through the multitude of different operators and organisations housing and operating the servers. This system has been stable for many years. We think that to change it in the way you envision would introduce risks more important than any co-ordination benefits.
Furthermore, we feel that you would do better not to burden ICANN with the task of financing the Root Server operating system. Rather, ICANN should stick to the core mission of coordinating them. "
Uhm, in my shoes I would have counter sued, in my home state. The lawyer that filed the suit is an officer of the court, and as such can be held resposible for filing a frivilous lawsuit.
You defend your rights, or very soon you won't have any. I'm sorry, but it may have be difficult for me to fight, but fight I will, even though I have kids at home, and must travel. To not fight is to submit, and if people continue to submit they will eventually live in a totalitarian(sp) society.
If she did nothing illegal then she should have stuck to her guns. There are various free legal services she has access to, all she had to do was call her local public defenders office. IANAL BUT I do believe that she would have had the right to coutner sue (in her home state) for the company filing a false, misleading, or malicous (sp) suit.
FYI, if the company that filed suit in the article said they delivered a letter via certified post, they probably have a signature card with SOMEONE's signature on it. Most lawyers won't goto court unless they have some documentation that they have made a "valid effort" to inform the defendant, or that a summons was delivered.
The sad truth is that very few people wish to take the time to actually stand up for what they believe in. Hiding in the sand and ignoring a problem is more effective and less dangerous. If more people filed counter suits and fought these law suits they wouldn't exist.
The problem is that smart robot programs can make their robot appear as any client. From experience I can tell you that most of these critters running around harvesting e-mail addresses are telling the server they are WIN98 with IE 5.0.
I just have one e-mail address on my honeypot page, when you send an e-mail to that address it triggers a script that firewalls the sending IP with iptables/ipchains/ipfw (depending on the server) and logs it. Makes it easy to find open relays and spamhaus servers.
I don't see how theft is innovation. As far back as recorded history theft has been with us and considered a crime. The only "innovation" is that these thieves have so far not been subject to any criminal proceedings.
I think an appropriate punishement for SPAMMERS would involved kneecaps and baseball bats
I sure would like to issue quite a few Cease & Desist letters myself. What legal footing do I have to stand on if I send a spammer a Cease & Desist for harrasment?
My Cease & Desist
Dear Sir,
My penis is already too long, and I already know everything about my neigbor and don't need a net detective. I am already married so I don't care about finding a perfect mate, and my mathematical skills make it extremely unlikely that I will visit your on-line casino. I don't need your on-line porno, or your Nigierian.
Your repeated attempts to market to me are it harassament. If you were doing this over a phone I would already be seeing your sorry but in jail. Since you are hiding I must send this to everyone that has helped you in your endeavour.
Please remit 1,000 dollars to my swiss bank account or I'll sick my laywer on you.
Sincerely Penis is to large and doesn't need to add another inch.
Please review ancient greek and roman history. (they were famous for killing people that disagreed with established thought of all sorts)While you at it, look at some of the early "scientific" rebuttles to Eistein or Darwin. If that isn't villification I don't know what is. I'm not talking about the regular press or religous institutions taking aim at someone's scientific findings.
While I agee that sometimes a person's personal faith may have entered into their "scientific opinions" (re darwin). I'm not referring to that. I'm reffering to generaly accepted scientific opinion at the time. The only way for me to judge that is by reading the papers written and published at that time.
>how the scientific community has accepted >counter-evidence and revised their opinion
Not before they villified, or even killed people that had different opinions (depending on what time we are talking about). Even today "peer" review can mean 2 things. It can mean that your work is looked over and seriously reviewed. It can also mean it's thrown in the can because you threaten someone's funding (or ego). It may be rare that this happens, but I would bet that it happens more often than you may think.
In the 1960s/70s (refer to new scientist from 1960 to 1975) there was a lot of work suggesting that we (The planet) were heading for another ice age because of the volume of pollutants we were putting in the atmosphere. I don't have the exact papers but this school of thought was pointed out to me when I had to do a report while studying in Finland. Most of the authors of the reports were american and the reports were usually funded by various american government agencies.
Over the years the following has been the consensus of the scientific community at one time.
1. We are on the verge of a man made ice age because of the amount of pollutants we are putting into the air (circa 1970)
2. The earth is flat
3. The earth is the center of the Universe
4. People with mental handicaps should be sterilized to prevent more mentally retarded children from being born
5. The age of the earth is (insert favorite number here)
Look at who and how environmental scientists are funded. They are for the most part funded by governments. The same governments that would only fund research into why certain illicit drugs were bad for you and cut funding to any study that found a use for said illicit drug. This is not about objective science it is about getting funding, it is about ego and it is about power. Look at my sig, I said that because I have personally watched people in the scientific community ignore data that does not agree with THEIR OPINIONS. Some try everything in their power to suppress data that suggests their hypothesis is wrong. They have to because their ego's are too big and their funding depends on them being PERCIEVED as correct.
Science should be about objective analysis of the data. That is often not the case, it's about cliques and popularity and grants. Newton is turning in his grave.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think if enough people added Yahoo to their block lists they would get a clue?
Clue by 4's are in rare supply at yahoo today.
From the article;
'However, the picture generally in Antarctica is a complicated one with temperatures in the interior actually falling over the same period. There is also some evidence that the retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, on the other side of the peninsula to the Larsen B shelf, has halted'
Add to that there is this gem 'Scientists hope the data gathered on site will help them determine when such an event last happened and which ice shelves are threatened in future.'
Oh, so we don't even know if this is a cyclical event and if so how often it happens..... From 1947 to the late 1960's or early 1970's (depending on who you believe) there was a global cooling. At that time some scientists were predicting another ice age.
This is a serious event that warrants study and careful scientific examiniation. It does not warrant people running about screaming at the top of your lungs "The sky is falling".
Doing so just makes people disbelieve you when/if you do have the hard evidence to back up your claims.
Great, another revenue source for lawyers. Does any one else see a problem with this?
Imagine someone suing everytime they got a blue screen. The ONLY way to make the software super duper lawyer proof would be to overly control the hardware. Thus stiffling inovation and the creative process as a whole. Remember that original IBM PC and the clone makers were more successful than Apple because the box was open and could be added to and hacked with relative ease. No persons box will have anything "easy" about hacking at it after the lawyers are finished.
For almost any problem where litigation has been the answer, the solution is often worse than the initial problem.
I was born and raised on the Canadian border. Generally if you wanted surgery you came to the US. It got done faster and the quality of care was considered excellent. If you wanted treatment for cancer or a terminal case you went to Canada where access to experimental treatments was better. I also know first hand the nurse shortage that Canada has been suffering for years.
Point 2. The money goes to the recording industry it seems, not to the Canadian people. If your going to have a tax, use the money to help pay for things you need. Like more nurses and hospital beds (especially in some of the more rural areas!!!!!)
This is just another reminder that politicians can be bought.
Canadians on average are taxed about 10-12% more than their US counterparts. (This was in 1993, may be more now). I hope the Canadians raise a huge stink about this. Especially since we all know that the money will go straight to the suits, and the artists get screwed......again.
KDE 3.0 is currently in beta. This means that if it doesn't compile or is missing things then so be it. Beta software by definition isn't ready for general release. (I know redundant but you know...eventually the point may sink in)
The 2.4 series kernel and recent Patch penguin broohaha could be criticised for the same. In fact the 2.4 kernel has been called the "Kernel of pain" because of the problems. What this has done is force the development community to work harder, and even Linus is trying new things (automated patch integration into the tree). I believe that constructive criticiscm is always helpful, and a good sanity check BEFORE KDE 3.0 is released does not in any way take away from KDE. Perhaps the can avoid the pitfalls of the 2.4 series Kernel.
>Isn't it obvious that the reason he wants to
>keep his relay open is so that his cypherpunk
>friends can send less-traceable e-mails? A noble >goal, even though it has unfortunate side->effects regarding spam and this new virus.
How is this relay sending less traceable e-mails? Has Gilmore re-written it so that the header information is always incorrect? Why can't his "cypherpunk" friends send their own untraceable e-mails by simply bounceing off one of the many open proxy servers? Why don't the spoof an IP to send an e-mail? Why don't they use an e-mail server in China? Why don't they use strong encryption like Gnupg so it doesn't matter if they are sniffed?
Gilmore is full of the brown stinky stuff, and your argument smells the same. Oh yeah, and it doesn't hold any water either. Come on, an open relay is a "privacy tool"? Please..... Your "layer of obfuscation" is nothing more than a layer of manure that has nothing to do with the "privacy consiousness" of anyone.
procmail is my friend and your enemy.
Anonymous cowards are such pussies.
The way RBL works is that your INCOMING mail is blacklisted. When a machine makes a connection to your ISP's SMTP port it checks it against the RBL. If that machine is NOT in the RBL then the machine continues with the trasaction. The SMTP server does not perform this same lookup when DELIVERING mail.
If and ISP blackholed his IP then you would have a problem. Verio apparently had filtered port 25 (they later took it off), which would prevent e-mail from getting to him. This is why I sent my mail to both his publically listed addresses. EFF.org isn't in any RBL that I know of (except china's)
I think Verio has a case that Herr Gilmore's server is a nuisance. By definition a nuisance is ".... is something that annoys -- a wearing on the nerves by a persistent unpleasantness. It can evoke anger and interfere with comfort and peace of mind." A server used to spread virii and SPAM would certainly meet that definition.
/.er's find a fit for this example? Is it a good option?
In several legal texts I see the following when reffering to nuisances and grounds for legal action
Nuisance
attractive nuisance
forseeability of danger
negligence
liability
I would think that this server can be shown to fit almost all of the above terms. Does anyone know if civil suits can be used to help stop SPAM? Is there a lawyer willing to take up the cause?
. Can
The following text of the e-mail that I sent
To: gnu@toad.org
Cc: gnu@eff.org, drg@verio.net
Subject: RE: Your fight with Verio
Dear Sir,
I find myself in an unusual position, agreeing with Verio. They (Verio) isn't trying to censor your mail, it is trying to prevent your mail server from being used by people to spread SPAM, viruses and other vermin of the e-mail world. It has nothing to do with trying to censor your free speech, or your opinions.
Allow me to provide a parallel this for you. Say you maintain a building on public property with a printing press. You leave the building unlocked so that your neighbor can use it as well. You do this because making a key for your friend is "just too much trouble". The building starts being used by violent gangs and an anarchist who builds his bombs there. The public ask you nicely to lock the building so that this activity will stop. You refuse saying that they are trying to censor you because you have a printing press in the building. That is patently untrue you are in affect aiding and abetting criminals by your negligence.
As an administrator that has to defend against SPAM attacks, sometimes coming by the hundreds and thousands for small domain that has at most 10 mailboxes I have no sympathy for you. This is not about free speech, this is about theft, denial of service and common sense.
aaron@NoitalianSpam-carsPlease.com
The gentleman in question has a home page here He also has an e-mail address of gnu@toad.com and gnu@eff.org so you can e-mail him here and here
May I suggest instead of bitching on slashdot you take a second and send an e-mail to the John and let him know how you feel. Practice your first amendment rights. Visit his web page as well. Perhaps the "slashdot affect" can do some good. Take a second and stop being so apathetic and send John Gilmore an e-mail.
How many exploits can one "secure" softare package have? I mean jesus, BSD is fairly secure and this project is supposed to have BSD style security checks. What went wrong.
Information like this makes me
A. Consider purchasing SSH from a commercial source because the AMOUNT of problems with it is less
B. Going back to telnet!
Not many people out there with sniffers between my box and my connection. Lots of l33t haX0rS with worms probing port 22.
Maybe CAI didn't want to keep improving the product. DJB's crypto paper and methodology shows that any key less than 1024 can be "easily" cracked. CAI would have had some more work to do on their product (just as I'm sure the GNUPG team is reconsidering the approaches they are using).
Finding the people to verify PGP is secure and proving that any new method of encryption is secure takes money, and since many people still consider zipping a file up with a password as "strong encryption" there was no market for it.
To think, not to long ago the US govt. was complaining that the world would end if we all had encryption. As it turns out, few cared enough to use it.
RIPE was one of the parties pressuring ICANN because they couldn't guarantee the root servers.
Now in this response they say "The so called "volunteers" operating the rootserver system are well funded and very well co-ordinated. Binding them contractually to one entity, ICANN, would create a single point of failure, possibly subject to capture. The current form of organisation works well, and is resistant to capture through the multitude of different operators and organisations housing and operating the servers. This system has been stable for many
years. We think that to change it in the way you envision would introduce risks more important than any co-ordination benefits.
Furthermore, we feel that you would do better not to burden ICANN with the task of financing the Root Server operating system. Rather, ICANN should
stick to the core mission of coordinating them.
"
Interesting
well spoken by an anonymous coward.
When the revolution comes you will be first against the wall.
Uhm, in my shoes I would have counter sued, in my home state. The lawyer that filed the suit is an officer of the court, and as such can be held resposible for filing a frivilous lawsuit.
You defend your rights, or very soon you won't have any. I'm sorry, but it may have be difficult for me to fight, but fight I will, even though I have kids at home, and must travel. To not fight is to submit, and if people continue to submit they will eventually live in a totalitarian(sp) society.
If she did nothing illegal then she should have stuck to her guns. There are various free legal services she has access to, all she had to do was call her local public defenders office. IANAL BUT I do believe that she would have had the right to coutner sue (in her home state) for the company filing a false, misleading, or malicous (sp) suit.
FYI, if the company that filed suit in the article said they delivered a letter via certified post, they probably have a signature card with SOMEONE's signature on it. Most lawyers won't goto court unless they have some documentation that they have made a "valid effort" to inform the defendant, or that a summons was delivered.
The sad truth is that very few people wish to take the time to actually stand up for what they believe in. Hiding in the sand and ignoring a problem is more effective and less dangerous. If more people filed counter suits and fought these law suits they wouldn't exist.
The problem is that smart robot programs can make their robot appear as any client. From experience I can tell you that most of these critters running around harvesting e-mail addresses are telling the server they are WIN98 with IE 5.0.
I just have one e-mail address on my honeypot page, when you send an e-mail to that address it triggers a script that firewalls the sending IP with iptables/ipchains/ipfw (depending on the server) and logs it. Makes it easy to find open relays and spamhaus servers.
I don't see how theft is innovation. As far back as recorded history theft has been with us and considered a crime. The only "innovation" is that these thieves have so far not been subject to any criminal proceedings.
I think an appropriate punishement for SPAMMERS would involved kneecaps and baseball bats
ENOUGH already, My penis is TOO long as it is
I sure would like to issue quite a few Cease & Desist letters myself. What legal footing do I have to stand on if I send a spammer a Cease & Desist for harrasment?
My Cease & Desist
Dear Sir,
My penis is already too long, and I already know everything about my neigbor and don't need a net detective. I am already married so I don't care about finding a perfect mate, and my mathematical skills make it extremely unlikely that I will visit your on-line casino. I don't need your on-line porno, or your Nigierian.
Your repeated attempts to market to me are it harassament. If you were doing this over a phone I would already be seeing your sorry but in jail. Since you are hiding I must send this to everyone that has helped you in your endeavour.
Please remit 1,000 dollars to my swiss bank account or I'll sick my laywer on you.
Sincerely
Penis is to large and doesn't need to add another inch.
No I am not.
Please review ancient greek and roman history. (they were famous for killing people that disagreed with established thought of all sorts)While you at it, look at some of the early "scientific" rebuttles to Eistein or Darwin. If that isn't villification I don't know what is. I'm not talking about the regular press or religous institutions taking aim at someone's scientific findings.
While I agee that sometimes a person's personal faith may have entered into their "scientific opinions" (re darwin). I'm not referring to that. I'm reffering to generaly accepted scientific opinion at the time. The only way for me to judge that is by reading the papers written and published at that time.
>how the scientific community has accepted >counter-evidence and revised their opinion
Not before they villified, or even killed people that had different opinions (depending on what time we are talking about). Even today "peer" review can mean 2 things. It can mean that your work is looked over and seriously reviewed. It can also mean it's thrown in the can because you threaten someone's funding (or ego). It may be rare that this happens, but I would bet that it happens more often than you may think.
In the 1960s/70s (refer to new scientist from 1960 to 1975) there was a lot of work suggesting that we (The planet) were heading for another ice age because of the volume of pollutants we were putting in the atmosphere. I don't have the exact papers but this school of thought was pointed out to me when I had to do a report while studying in Finland. Most of the authors of the reports were american and the reports were usually funded by various american government agencies.
Just curious: Have you read the book?
Over the years the following has been the consensus of the scientific community at one time.
1. We are on the verge of a man made ice age because of the amount of pollutants we are putting into the air (circa 1970)
2. The earth is flat
3. The earth is the center of the Universe
4. People with mental handicaps should be sterilized to prevent more mentally retarded children from being born
5. The age of the earth is (insert favorite number here)
Look at who and how environmental scientists are funded. They are for the most part funded by governments. The same governments that would only fund research into why certain illicit drugs were bad for you and cut funding to any study that found a use for said illicit drug. This is not about objective science it is about getting funding, it is about ego and it is about power. Look at my sig, I said that because I have personally watched people in the scientific community ignore data that does not agree with THEIR OPINIONS. Some try everything in their power to suppress data that suggests their hypothesis is wrong. They have to because their ego's are too big and their funding depends on them being PERCIEVED as correct.
Science should be about objective analysis of the data. That is often not the case, it's about cliques and popularity and grants. Newton is turning in his grave.